America - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Trademark

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009

Posted: December 03 2006 at 17:12

The faster I think, the worser I spell

progismylife View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2006
Location: ibreathehelium
Status: Offline
Points: 15535

Posted: December 03 2006 at 17:18

Also I should have read the whole post. I feel really stupid right now. But thanks for catching me in my error and slapping me silly with rebuke.

stonebeard View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057

Posted: December 03 2006 at 17:18

Ivan:

The Bible (or at least so late in the Bible, as Romans is) is a work of man, is it not? I believe that the writers were inspired or influences by their circumstances, which were certainly different from ours. I think to say the the entirety of the Bible is a "all or nothing" sort of situation is a bit ignorant of the many ways the Bible could have been altered throughout history to fit a certain purpose in time. Not to say that the most important bits (Jesus' teachings, Revelations (which I see more as a metaphor at best, or a fantastical extrapolation, likely), and Genesis) are completely void since theres a chance they could be speckled with little add-ins later in Christianity's time, but that to assert that the whole of the Bible is complete and utter truth and that if you don't believe it all, you have no right in formulating opinions on what you do believe in.

(Which is a much harsher way of putting it than you meant, but it it what I perceived. Correct me if I misinterpreted you.)

I get where you're coming from; we should not say, "Yeah, Jesus said some great stuff, but after he was killed, he ascended to heaven? Oh come on!" But to keep in mind that such an influential and widely-read book can not possibly be exact in conveying what it was originally intedned to say in every possible aspect.

My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

progismylife View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2006
Location: ibreathehelium
Status: Offline
Points: 15535

Posted: December 03 2006 at 17:28

I would love to say something to this but decide to keep my mouth shut.

Edited by progismylife - December 03 2006 at 17:28

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: December 03 2006 at 17:29

stonebeard wrote:

Ivan:

I agree with you, have said this hings from the start when talking about historicall perspective a few pages ago, but it's very comfortable (Not in your case) to say "Hey I want to take this from the Bible and ignore the contradictory arguments."

My first phrase a couple of posts ago was "I hate to mix Religion with politics" but if people use the Bible as an excuse to justify modern situations that are far from the context of the time in which it was written, then this person must accept that the Bible may say the opposite in other book.

There are essential principles in the Bible, specially in the words of Jesus, the main one is to respect the life of others, nobody who supports a terrorist homicide should use the Bible as his shileld.

I know, the Bible often id full of symbols that you have to understand as a whole in order to get where they are taking you, I believe God created the Universe but the Genesis Book is only a symbolism easy to understand by men of the bronze era that didn't had the idea of the big bang.

Iván

progismylife View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2006
Location: ibreathehelium
Status: Offline
Points: 15535

Posted: December 03 2006 at 17:37

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

but if people use the Bible as an excuse to justify modern situations that are far from the context of the time in which it was written, then this person must accept that the Bible may say the opposite in other book

What do you mean about the person must accept that the Bible may say the opposite in other book?

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: December 03 2006 at 17:46

progismylife wrote:

What do you mean about the person must accept that the Bible may say the opposite in other book?

Like for example:

Leviticus 26:

7 And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.

8 And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.

and:

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27-28).

Sounds exactly like opposite, I stay with the word of Jesus not with words atributed to God by some humans..both in the Bibble.

Iván

1800iareyay View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: November 18 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2492

Posted: December 03 2006 at 17:48

Forgotten Son wrote:

Scapler wrote:

But the American people have, it is about time I stopped paying the price for what my ancestors did, I didn't do them, I am not responsible. In fact, my ancestors didn't do it either! Mine were still busy over in Ireland planting potatoes. This may be off topic, but I am so tired of the perception of the white man as evil and stupid. I have never commited crimes against humanity, and just because white racists did doesn't degrade or mark me. Racism and hate are universal, spread among all races like the seed of decay. It is about time race was abolished from people's thinking.

This is a very good point. I myself started paying attention to this idea of apologising for things ancestors have done after Tony Blair made a public statement about the slave trade. I agree that we shouldn't really dwell upon these issues (though we shouldn't forget them either, knowledge of history is vital) as there are many crimes ongoing that we should be turning our attention on. Iraq, Darfur, Chechnya etc.

I've never understood why they do that. It would be like Jews apologizing for killing Jesus, which is preposterous. It would affect no one. At lest when Reagan apologizing for the Japanese interment camps of World War II, people who had been in it were there to receive the apology. You can't apologize to nobody; there must be someone there who is/was deeply affected by what you are apologizing for. In 200 years the President will apologize to Vietnam for "that nasty little business." Live in the now. Like FS said, focus on current atrocities.

JrKASperov View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: July 07 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 904

Posted: December 03 2006 at 17:52

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Like for example:

Leviticus 26:

7 And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.

8 And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.

and:

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27-28).

None may understand without the Breath of YHWH.

Epic.

progismylife View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2006
Location: ibreathehelium
Status: Offline
Points: 15535

Posted: December 03 2006 at 17:58

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

progismylife wrote:

What do you mean about the person must accept that the Bible may say the opposite in other book?

Like for example:

Leviticus 26:

<FONT face=Verdana size=2>7 And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.

<FONT face=Verdana size=2>8 And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.

and:

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27-28).

Sounds exactly like opposite, I stay with the word of Jesus not with words atributed to God by some humans..both in the Bibble.

Iván

I asked my dad about that contradictory statement you bring up. He is a reverend/pastor.
First off in the Leviticus part, the Israelites were God's people. So enemies of the Israelites, in the Old Testament, were enemies of God and God used that nation as a judgement against other nations that rejected God. He told Abraham that God would bless those who bless Abraham (and his descendants) and curse those who curse Abraham.
The second part is that the context changed. Jesus is talking to the people as individuals, not as a nation. He says that He will carry out God's judgement not the israleites.

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: December 03 2006 at 18:04

progismylife wrote:

I asked my dad about that contradictory statement you bring up. He is a reverend/pastor.
First off in the Leviticus part, the Israelites were God's people. So enemies of the Israelites, in the Old Testament, were enemies of God and God used that nation as a judgement against other nations that rejected God. He told Abraham that God would bless those who bless Abraham (and his descendants) and curse those who curse Abraham.
The second part is that the context changed. Jesus is talking to the people as individuals, not as a nation. He says that He will carry out God's judgement not the israleites.

So it's OK to kill those nations who don't believe in our God?

I stay with the New Testament and Jesus message of love and sacrifice and still find this contradictory.

The Old Testament is mainly written by people who claim having heard this from people who probably misunderstood God's message, while the Ne Testament contains the words of Jesus who we believe is God.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 03 2006 at 18:06

stonebeard View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057

Posted: December 03 2006 at 18:10

It's always confused me how the Israelites were "God's people." Isn't every person God's people? The whole Tower of Babel thing....

My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Trademark

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009

Posted: December 03 2006 at 18:13

In those days, (Old testament days, that is) Stoney, God was establishing his chosen people as the Israelitees. this remained the ccase until the coming of Christ. It wasn't until Jesus that the rest of mankind was welcomed into the covenant without converting to Judaism. So in a sense, it was always for everyone, but you had to be Jewish.   After Christ came, you no longer had to convert. Christ completed the law of Moses and the predictions of the prophets and rendered the "law" inert. He became the sacrifice, the Lamb of God.




Edited by Trademark - December 03 2006 at 18:45

Ghandi 2

Forum Senior Member

Joined: February 17 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1494

Posted: December 03 2006 at 18:22

Ivan, the OT is the inspired word of God, just as the new. If you, as a Catholic, are rejecting the validity of the OT, then that makes you a heretic. :S

Many of the inconstancies can be explained with the Old Law/New Law, unlike the Koran, which was written by one made and then the Words of the Prophet, which was written (I believe) by Mohammed's followers sometime after his death.

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: December 03 2006 at 22:21

Ghandi 2 wrote:

Ivan, the OT is the inspired word of God, just as the new. If you, as a Catholic, are rejecting the validity of the OT, then that makes you a heretic. :S

Many of the inconstancies can be explained with the Old Law/New Law, unlike the Koran, which was written by one made and then the Words of the Prophet, which was written (I believe) by Mohammed's followers sometime after his death.

Not an heretic, I have my doubts about the Old Testament being that it's a collection of books passed mouth to mouth from generation to generation until it was taken into the Bible.

Even the Pope John Paul II has clearlystated that the Evolution is a fact and for that reason the Book of Genesis is not accurate when talking about Adam and Eve.

On the other hand the New Testament is the direct word of thjose who lived with Jesus and there are many other apocriphal Gopspels that corroborate most facts.

I may have faith but I'm not blind.

Iván

Trademark

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009

Posted: December 03 2006 at 22:43

"So it's OK to kill those nations who don't believe in our God?"

According to the OT, It wasn't just OK, it was required. God told Joshua to "kill 'em all" and take their land. He instructed that no living thing (even livestock) be left and that no spoils be taken from them. It was all to be totally eradicated in order to make the homeland promised to Abraham in the Covenant centuries before.

It is widely thought that if Joshua had actually done what hew was told to do by God there wouldn't be the troubles in the middle east that we now have.

Not an opinion of mine exactly, just some facts about people. But for what it's worth I go with this approach: the OT is the inspired word of God, just as the New.

Edited by Trademark - December 03 2006 at 22:45

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: December 03 2006 at 22:50

Trademark wrote:

"So it's OK to kill those nations who don't believe in our God?"

According to the OT, It wasn't just OK, it was required. God told Joshua to "kill 'em all" and take their land. He instructed that no living thing (even livestock) be left and that no spoils be taken from them. It was all to be totally eradicated in order to make the homeland promised to Abraham in the Covenant centuries before.

It is widely thought that if Joshua had actually done what hew was told to do by God there wouldn't be the troubles in the middle east that we now have.

Not an opinion of mine exactly, just some facts about people. But for what it's worth I go with this approach: the OT is the inspired word of God, just as the New.

I just hope this is only the result of a nationalist doctrine from a radical faction of Joshua that missunderstood the word of God, because I don't think that God wants us to kill the ones who don't believe in him.

But, I'm not a theologist.

Iván

Atavachron View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65922

Posted: December 03 2006 at 22:50

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

I may have faith but I'm not blind.

Iván

I like that.

Trademark

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009

Posted: December 03 2006 at 22:54

"I just hope this is only the result of a nationalist doctrine from a radical faction of Joshua that missunderstood the word of God, because I don't think that God wants us to kill the ones who don't believe in him."

I'm not a theologist either, but from what I gather they (the theologists) will tell you that God did want you to then, but doesn't want us to anymore.

By all accounts Joshua, who took over when Moses died, made a pretty good effort at the task, but in the end fell short of the "final solution". The Old Testament is bloodier than a Mel Gibson movie.

Edited by Trademark - December 03 2006 at 23:04

JrKASperov View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: July 07 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 904

Posted: December 04 2006 at 04:47

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

I may have faith but I'm not blind.

Iván

You lack the faith to believe He can do everything?

Edited by JrKASperov - December 04 2006 at 04:47

Epic.